Convicting Juveniles to Life Without Parole

When does a juvenile legally become an adult? This is literally a life-or-death question because the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on a juvenile. Despite the enormous consequences, the Supreme Court has spent little time defining what it means to be a juvenile. Instead, the Court has simply accepted the relatively recently adopted conventional wisdom that a person is considered an adult on his or her eighteenth birthday. But there is no rational or scientific basis for drawing the line between being an adult and being a juvenile at age eighteen. Indeed, recent scientific research—the same brain research the United States Supreme Court has used to adopt legal principles that both protect and harm adolescents—proves that brain maturation actually occurs from ages ten to twenty-seven. This article will explore whether the line between a juvenile and an adult should remain at eighteen. It begins by exploring the history of distinguishing childhood from adulthood. Next, this article details the legal system’s differing treatment of certain ages. Then, it details the criminal justice system’s treatment of persons below the age of eighteen. Next, this article discusses the science behind cognitive development. Then, it discusses Supreme Court decisions that affect rights of individuals based on age. Finally, the article concludes that drawing the line of adulthood at age eighteen without consideration of an individual’s characteristics is arbitrary under the Constitution

The Status of Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Report of the Task Force on the Status of Clinicians and the Legal Academy

In the midst of ongoing debates within the legal academy and the American Bar Association on the need for practice-ready law school graduates through enhanced attention to law clinics and externships and on the status of faculty teaching in those courses, this report identifies and evaluates the most appropriate modes for clinical faculty appointments. Drawing on data collected through a survey of clinical program directors and faculty, the report analyzes the five most identifiable clinical faculty models: unitary tenure track; clinical tenure track; long-term contract; short-term contract; and clinical fellowships. It determines that, despite great strides in the growth of clinical legal education in the last 30 years, equality between clinical and non-clinical faculty remains elusive. Clinical faculty still lag behind non-clinical faculty in security of position and governance rights at most law schools. The report then identifies four core principles that should guide decisions about clinical faculty appointments: 1) clinical education is a foundational and essential component of legal education; 2) the legal academy and profession benefit from full inclusion of clinical faculty on all matters affecting the mission, function, and direction of law schools; 3) there is no justification for creating hierarchies between clinical and non-clinical faculty; and 4) the standards for hiring, retention, and promotion of clinical faculty must recognize and value the responsibilities and methodologies of clinical teaching. The report concludes that these core principles are best realized when full-time clinical faculty are appointed to a unitary tenure track. This conclusion does not ignore the imperfections of a tenure system. However, to the extent that tenure remains the strongest measure of the legal academy\u27s investment in its faculty and is the surest guarantee of academic freedom, inclusion in faculty governance and job security, the report recommends that law schools predominantly place their clinical faculty on dedicated tenure lines. In addition, it recommends that schools implement standards for hiring, promotion, and retention that reflect the teaching responsibilities and methodologies, as well as practice and service obligations, unique to their clinical faculty. To facilitate the development of such standards, the report suggests good practices for the appointment of clinical faculty on a unitary tenure track

Convicting Juveniles to Life Without Parole

When does a juvenile legally become an adult? This is literally a life-or-death question because the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on a juvenile. Despite the enormous consequences, the Supreme Court has spent little time defining what it means to be a juvenile. Instead, the Court has simply accepted the relatively recently adopted conventional wisdom that a person is considered an adult on his or her eighteenth birthday. But there is no rational or scientific basis for drawing the line between being an adult and being a juvenile at age eighteen. Indeed, recent scientific research—the same brain research the United States Supreme Court has used to adopt legal principles that both protect and harm adolescents—proves that brain maturation actually occurs from ages ten to twenty-seven. This article will explore whether the line between a juvenile and an adult should remain at eighteen. It begins by exploring the history of distinguishing childhood from adulthood. Next, this article details the legal system’s differing treatment of certain ages. Then, it details the criminal justice system’s treatment of persons below the age of eighteen. Next, this article discusses the science behind cognitive development. Then, it discusses Supreme Court decisions that affect rights of individuals based on age. Finally, the article concludes that drawing the line of adulthood at age eighteen without consideration of an individual’s characteristics is arbitrary under the Constitution

The Status of Clinical Faculty in the Legal Academy: Report of the Task Force on the Status of Clinicians and the Legal Academy

In the midst of ongoing debates within the legal academy and the American Bar Association on the need for practice-ready law school graduates through enhanced attention to law clinics and externships and on the status of faculty teaching in those courses, this report identifies and evaluates the most appropriate modes for clinical faculty appointments. Drawing on data collected through a survey of clinical program directors and faculty, the report analyzes the five most identifiable clinical faculty models: unitary tenure track; clinical tenure track; long-term contract; short-term contract; and clinical fellowships. It determines that, despite great strides in the growth of clinical legal education in the last 30 years, equality between clinical and non-clinical faculty remains elusive. Clinical faculty still lag behind non-clinical faculty in security of position and governance rights at most law schools. The report then identifies four core principles that should guide decisions about clinical faculty appointments: 1) clinical education is a foundational and essential component of legal education; 2) the legal academy and profession benefit from full inclusion of clinical faculty on all matters affecting the mission, function, and direction of law schools; 3) there is no justification for creating hierarchies between clinical and non-clinical faculty; and 4) the standards for hiring, retention, and promotion of clinical faculty must recognize and value the responsibilities and methodologies of clinical teaching. The report concludes that these core principles are best realized when full-time clinical faculty are appointed to a unitary tenure track. This conclusion does not ignore the imperfections of a tenure system. However, to the extent that tenure remains the strongest measure of the legal academy\u27s investment in its faculty and is the surest guarantee of academic freedom, inclusion in faculty governance and job security, the report recommends that law schools predominantly place their clinical faculty on dedicated tenure lines. In addition, it recommends that schools implement standards for hiring, promotion, and retention that reflect the teaching responsibilities and methodologies, as well as practice and service obligations, unique to their clinical faculty. To facilitate the development of such standards, the report suggests good practices for the appointment of clinical faculty on a unitary tenure track